Ok, so allow me to look like a complete idiot. I haven't been following the financial part of hockey closely at any point in my experience as a fan.

The argument, from what I can glean, revolves around player and owner percentages of revenue. I know what revenue is and I understand the concept of percentages (and if I didn't would you expect that I would be punctuating so well)

What I don't understand is that players have a stake in revenue at all. The players sign a contract. From what I understand they are paid X amount of dollars to play X amount of seasons. A contract is binding by law no matter how you slice it. The players are owed that amount of money if they play for the team (barring injuries and in that case insurance comes in).

Do players get a cut of the revenue that I am not aware of? Please, someone knowledgeable, set a helpless mind at ease.

The Salary Cap is directly tied to League revenues. Either the lower or upper limit is based on ~57% of hockey related revenue.

As revenue's have increased, so has the upper limit of the cap.

The problem is that the majority of that increase has been in ~10 teams. The other 20 are treading water or losing money. Ostensibly (<= correct usage of word?), they need to help the teams that are losing money and have no hope to consistently spend even to the lower limit.

The owners want to redo the percentage of HRR that is granted to the players to make this work. That basically means that they want to lower the cap. They also want rollbacks so that player salaries will be in percentage with the new cap.

The players obviously don't want this, and instead have offered a proposal that increases revenue sharing to help the bleeding while maintaining the status quo.